Dr. Abd Al-Mu'ti Bayumi, a member of Al-Azhar's Islamic Research Academy, said that the mosque's construction could link Islam to 9/11, even though Islam is innocent of the deed. He also called the plan a "Zionist plot”.

Dialing back the crazy just a bit (maybe?), here’s another pronouncement from the same interview on the futility of interfaith dialog:

Unfortunately, in some of the dialogue sessions I attended in Italy, France, Germany, and the U.S., the dialogue was paralyzed. It did not significantly [benefit the] Muslims and did not lead to any actual change in the West's positions at the decision[-making] level: [it did nothing to change] the West's longtime support of Israel and [did not stop the West from] assisting [Israel] in deferring [its] commitment to the rights of the Palestinian people; [nor did it promote] the need to respect Islam's symbols, just as we Muslims respect the emblems of the other religions. This is clearly evident in the case of the offensive cartoons [depicting] the Prophet, which were interpreted as a matter of freedom of expression, despite the fact that [the cartoons] had nothing to do with freedom of opinion.

My western bias says that politics is compromise, and effective dialog leads all participants to a new perspective. Apparently under Islam, the only purpose of conversation is to bring everyone else around to your own unwavering dictates.

The WTC mosque defenders argue that promoting interfaith dialog is part of the intent of the project. If dialog means only that others must change, the mosque pretty much is an attack to establish a beachhead for further Islamic conquest. There is no dialog, there is only battle.

I wonder how those crafty Jews manage to prevent any measured and modest Muslim voices from softening the radical edge of Islam and spoiling the plot?